Brexit - merged threads

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Read my post re offset. 🙂 

Many companies move. At the time they are mobile with a new investment proposal they look at the places they could go to. If there are costs associated with moving to a priority area then these costs can be offset by the Country's Government but this is strictly audited by the EU and subject to legal challenge if it breaches limits set dependent on areas. 

The EU can offset infrastructure costs. I worked on spending millions in the Black country to reclaim derelict land. 

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger? This happens in the UK with subsidy to most places North of Watford. This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger. Good news all round in my book. The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight. I have told before the EU audit of the Greek reservoir that turned out to have diving boards and lane markers. The money was paid back. 

You don't really believe all that do you ?

Moving JLR production from the UK to Slovakia helps British workers how ? It might help Slovakia some what , and it makes the eu look more like a success story than the dogs dinner its becoming. 

But in reality a lot of money goes into projects that do not bear fruit, white elephant style, or in some cases don't even exist ? Your reservoir being one such example among thousands upon thousands,  farming subsidies for livestock or crops that were never there...

We already spend billions in overseas aid, trying to help poorer economies get moving , at the detriment of our own services, 14 million people in poverty in this country allegedly,  yet you think it's better to try and drag ex Soviet bloc countries into the 21 st century? 

I'm sorry Grant ,but you're still dreaming the dream of EU unity , getting  all teary eyed about one day having parity of wealth across the continent, maybe across the world ? 

The only way that's going to happen is by OUR economy suffering to the point that any wealth that still exists here, has upped sticks and moved to the far east or across the pond,  leaving a nation of benefit claimants and pensioners with no taxes collected to pay them, THEN the real fun will start, even the immigrants will ship out till be that bad.!

Tell me you cant see the possibility of this scenario.

[pinfireman]

The BBC’s Laura K has confirmed that Labour will be officially backing the Yvette Cooper amendment which would tear up the rules of Parliament and allow backbench MPs to bring in a Bill to block Brexit from happening in March. Hardline Remainers trying to reverse Brexit will be delighted. How will Labour’s Brexit-supporting voters feel about it?

Update:   Cooper defeated!

Nutty nutritionalists are doing their best to keep us well-fed on a diet of hilarious stories at the moment, this time it’s a group of ‘public health’ researchers who have come up with one of the fruitiest Project Fear warnings yet, claiming that there will be an extra 12,400 cardiovascular deaths over the next ten years because of people eating less fruit and veg after Brexit. Totally bananas…

As Economists for Free Trade’s Edgar Miller points out, the EU’s agricultural prices are 20% higher than outside, and the UK will be able to eliminate tariffs on the many fruits and vegetables not produced in the UK after Brexit. None of the researchers have any background in trade…

When you look at the authors of the study, it suddenly starts to make a bit more sense. Take Simon Capewell, a ‘Professor of Public Health’ at Liverpool University, whose pinned tweet reads “#Brexit is INSANE” before listing “24 GREAT reasons to love #EU”, including “#Food” and “#Veg”, and tagging fellow ‘academic’ A.C. Grayling. Capewell is a People’s Vote supporter as well as the author of this hilarious slideshow about post-Brexit food policy. Heavy on Comic Sans, light on facts…

Or Martin O’Flaherty, a regular retweeter of Lord Adonis who likes to tweet about“Brexit Lunacy” and how “We are the bad guys, not the EU”. They might need to reconsider where the real Brexit lunacy is coming from…

Will update this post with the names of Labour MPs who defied their constituents and manifesto promise when they become available…

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

Nah....we’re British. We’ll make a few noises and there’ll be a few rumblings, then we’ll plan and organise the biggest protest ( peaceful 😀) the country has ever seen, then it’ll rain and no one will show up. 👍

That was the past..... we have moved on since then!

3 hours ago, oowee said:

The list is easy zero. The EU does not pay to relocate businesses.

It will pay to offset infrastructure (physical and human) costs which in turn will encourage investors to consider moving to priority areas. Governments are allowed to contribute directly to business under the equivalent of the Regional Selective assistance program which is strictly controlled by the the EU.  Service companies are largely exempt from these forms of assistance (there may be exceptions now). 

I managed to secure funds for many companies to move to the MIdlands from the EU when that was a priority area. 

The EU cannot pay to move a company from here to there. So your suggestion of employment changes is bogus. I would have thought you would applaud the EU encouraging jobs in Poland ect. It would encourage workers to stay in the home country whilst building the EU market place. 

Common sense economics to get the most out of the workforce and build the largest possible market place for yourself all working to the same standards. What a shame we are giving it all up. 

Is that Corbyn?

RUBBISH !! The EU dishes out "grants" like confetti.............ask Nestle !

Edited January 29, 2019 by pinfireman
spelling

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

Well its not recent but Ingersol Rand moved manufacturing from Wigan to somewhere in what was the Czech area, the company were offered something like no tax for ten-fifteen years costs covered for training and relocation, so long as local folk were trained, this was early 2002-03 which meant that probably 200 ish folk out of work nit big numbers but how many more times has this happened?

Companies are happily setting up in Poland with some folk probably going back having been working over here, but when companies are taking complete product lines as they are, then its not good for future prospects, and you can be sure these countries will be getting plenty of help.

Oowee just talks civil service double-dutch! The EU makes it financially easy for these companies to set up new factories abroad, and close existing ones here!

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Read my post re offset. 🙂 

Many companies move. At the time they are mobile with a new investment proposal they look at the places they could go to. If there are costs associated with moving to a priority area then these costs can be offset by the Country's Government but this is strictly audited by the EU and subject to legal challenge if it breaches limits set dependent on areas. 

The EU can offset infrastructure costs. I worked on spending millions in the Black country to reclaim derelict land. 

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger? This happens in the UK with subsidy to most places North of Watford. This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger. Good news all round in my book. The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight. I have told before the EU audit of the Greek reservoir that turned out to have diving boards and lane markers. The money was paid back. 

The money they spent in the Midlands was OUR MONEY!!!  We pay in, they launder it, and give us a little back in "grants".............

1 hour ago, oowee said:

Read my post re offset. 🙂 

Many companies move. At the time they are mobile with a new investment proposal they look at the places they could go to. If there are costs associated with moving to a priority area then these costs can be offset by the Country's Government but this is strictly audited by the EU and subject to legal challenge if it breaches limits set dependent on areas. 

The EU can offset infrastructure costs. I worked on spending millions in the Black country to reclaim derelict land. 

Surely it's right at an EU level that the weakest economies get help to make them stronger? This happens in the UK with subsidy to most places North of Watford. This helps promote and spread wealth and make the market bigger. Good news all round in my book. The beauty of the EU in the process is proper oversight. I have told before the EU audit of the Greek reservoir that turned out to have diving boards and lane markers. The money was paid back. 

It,s OUR MONEY!

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

One of the problems is rather than bringing the weakest economies up to the level of the higher performing economies is that it pulls the higher economies down to a lower common denominator.

and it,s OUR MONEY they are using! British taxpayer money.......you and me!

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not by taking away work, and jobs from the stronger; that just weakens the stronger economies.

 

What it really does is take 'power' from the free market and move it into the hands of the politicians/EU bureaucrats - i.e. the EU 'state'

 

Control from business and the market transferred to the 'state.  BAD news.

 

This from the organisation whose auditors couldn't sign off their accounts?

When it was a 'common market', it made sense.  Now it dabbles in moving work around at officials whims, it makes no sense.

How many companies moved OUT of Germany, making German workers redundant?

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not by taking away work, and jobs from the stronger; that just weakens the stronger economies.

 

What it really does is take 'power' from the free market and move it into the hands of the politicians/EU bureaucrats - i.e. the EU 'state'

 

Control from business and the market transferred to the 'state.  BAD news.

 

This from the organisation whose auditors couldn't sign off their accounts?

When it was a 'common market', it made sense.  Now it dabbles in moving work around at officials whims, it makes no sense.

Oowee cracks some of the best gags!  "Proper oversight"......Boy, that had some of the redundant workers here falling about! 

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not by taking away work, and jobs from the stronger; that just weakens the stronger economies.

 

What it really does is take 'power' from the free market and move it into the hands of the politicians/EU bureaucrats - i.e. the EU 'state'

 

Control from business and the market transferred to the 'state.  BAD news.

 

This from the organisation whose auditors couldn't sign off their accounts?

When it was a 'common market', it made sense.  Now it dabbles in moving work around at officials whims, it makes no sense.

CORRECT!

1 hour ago, oowee said:

How? 

 

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK? The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world. Sorry you do not like it.

Have you asked yourself why their accounts are not audited? Come on, oowee, tell us what no journalist, or politician has been unable to find out..........seeing as how you have an inside track to the  Commission?

1 hour ago, oowee said:

How? 

 

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK? The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world. Sorry you do not like it.

British government grants and subsidies went to the North long before the EU did! I know, I live there, dealt with coalfield regeneration funds...

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is done within the UK under one tax/fiscal system, under the control of the elected UK Parliament (OK, I accept that now Parliament doesn't follow the electorates wishes closely, but it did once).  That is NOT the same as things moved to other countries around by the EU commission.  The so called 'single market' is not the same as a single country in the the whole fiscal and taxation systems are different.

Overall I do not like state interference.  I accept it is sometimes necessary and can do good in places, but it should be used with a very gentle touch and as little as possible  - and ideally by people who very clearly understand the local issues.  Widespread state interference and control is nearly always a route to inefficiency and long term dependency on state assistance/market tampering.

'Moving' jobs from the so called 'rich' areas to the 'poor' areas harms the sections that generates the wealth - and provides (often simply short term) jobs in poor areas that overall often generate less wealth.  The only people who benefit are those who collect the subsidies.

I worked for a company (30 odd years ago) that specialised on buying companies in 'wealthy areas' and moving them to a subsidised area, collecting large sums from the EU to do so.  The directors grew rich, the employees either had to move or loose their jobs, and the 'moved companies' usually 'folded' in a few years - reason - usually because the subsidies to move dried up and the key people moved back to their original areas.  It was a crooked game, encouraged by the EU and certain crooked individuals.  I left.

Brilliant! Almost the story of the funds to regenerate the old coalfield areas!

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Mrs Balls ammendment was lost!

Great news!

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

I only support it where;

• it is a genuine NEW job, not simply someone else's moved job.
• it is a proper long term realistic job, not an artificial 'game' to farm the subsidies handed out
• it is cost effective to move and repays the move costs in a reasonable time frame.

Far too many 'moves' have been done simply to collect handouts/meet political aims and have no rational economic justification.  I am reminded of Jim Hacker always asking when consulted "if it was in a marginal seat"?

Taking money/jobs from the rich to give to the poor makes everyone poor in the long run (possibly except a few crooked politicians).  Giving the poor the knowledge, leadership tools and materials to do a job may make them rich.

Excellent!

31 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You don't really believe all that do you ?

Moving JLR production from the UK to Slovakia helps British workers how ? It might help Slovakia some what , and it makes the eu look more like a success story than the dogs dinner its becoming. 

But in reality a lot of money goes into projects that do not bear fruit, white elephant style, or in some cases don't even exist ? Your reservoir being one such example among thousands upon thousands,  farming subsidies for livestock or crops that were never there...

We already spend billions in overseas aid, trying to help poorer economies get moving , at the detriment of our own services, 14 million people in poverty in this country allegedly,  yet you think it's better to try and drag ex Soviet bloc countries into the 21 st century? 

I'm sorry Grant ,but you're still dreaming the dream of EU unity , getting  all teary eyed about one day having parity of wealth across the continent, maybe across the world ? 

The only way that's going to happen is by OUR economy suffering to the point that any wealth that still exists here, has upped sticks and moved to the far east or across the pond,  leaving a nation of benefit claimants and pensioners with no taxes collected to pay them, THEN the real fun will start, even the immigrants will ship out till be that bad.!

Tell me you cant see the possibility of this scenario.

He,s a socialist, and a former civil servant! 

[pinfireman]

After 24 hours of drama, Graham Brady’s amendment calling for the backstop to be replaced has been approved by the Commons by 317 to 301. Majority of 16…

It is a fair majority of MPs on an amendment which expresses conditional approval for a deal, providing legally binding changes are made to the backstop. The EU’s photocopiers are already going into overdrive recycling old statements about the deal being non-negotiable, the reality is that they cannot ignore this vote. MPs have given May a powerful mandate, it’s time she used it and stood up to the EU…

[Mice!]

30 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

How many companies moved OUT of Germany, making German workers redundant?

Now that's a good question, or France? They blockade the country at the drop of a hat, imagine if someone decided to move manufacturing or assembly to England.

[12gauge82]

47 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

After 24 hours of drama, Graham Brady’s amendment calling for the backstop to be replaced has been approved by the Commons by 317 to 301. Majority of 16…

It is a fair majority of MPs on an amendment which expresses conditional approval for a deal, providing legally binding changes are made to the backstop. The EU’s photocopiers are already going into overdrive recycling old statements about the deal being non-negotiable, the reality is that they cannot ignore this vote. MPs have given May a powerful mandate, it’s time she used it and stood up to the EU…

There should only be two options left in this saga now, Mays deal minus the never ending back stop or, if the EU won't see sense with Mays deal, which is still a terrible deal for the UK and will see us pay them billions they have now right to and we have no legal need to pay, no deal which I think would be great, of course we'll see more back pedaling if it came to that

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You don't really believe all that do you ?

Moving JLR production from the UK to Slovakia helps British workers how ? It might help Slovakia some what , and it makes the eu look more like a success story than the dogs dinner its becoming. 

But in reality a lot of money goes into projects that do not bear fruit, white elephant style, or in some cases don't even exist ? Your reservoir being one such example among thousands upon thousands,  farming subsidies for livestock or crops that were never there...

We already spend billions in overseas aid, trying to help poorer economies get moving , at the detriment of our own services, 14 million people in poverty in this country allegedly,  yet you think it's better to try and drag ex Soviet bloc countries into the 21 st century? 

I'm sorry Grant ,but you're still dreaming the dream of EU unity , getting  all teary eyed about one day having parity of wealth across the continent, maybe across the world ? 

The only way that's going to happen is by OUR economy suffering to the point that any wealth that still exists here, has upped sticks and moved to the far east or across the pond,  leaving a nation of benefit claimants and pensioners with no taxes collected to pay them, THEN the real fun will start, even the immigrants will ship out till be that bad.!

Tell me you cant see the possibility of this scenario.

The UK car industry collapsed in part because it was based and only based in the UK. It was unable to protect itself against currency shifts and national trends. Only a global business will survive. The Japanese learnt this first and now we all follow. The JLR (Tata) business in SK is not an EU project. 

 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Oowee just talks civil service double-dutch! The EU makes it financially easy for these companies to set up new factories abroad, and close existing ones here!

The money they spent in the Midlands was OUR MONEY!!!  We pay in, they launder it, and give us a little back in "grants".............

It,s OUR MONEY!

and it,s OUR MONEY they are using! British taxpayer money.......you and me!

How many companies moved OUT of Germany, making German workers redundant?

The UK Government reducing the role of unions,and changes in the redundancy rules makes it easy for companies to close existing ones. At the same time it makes it easy to set up new ones. It's both good and bad. 

At the time we were receiving EU funds we were a net beneficiary.

What companies have moved out of anywhere? When we talk about JLR and the plant in Slovakia it is all new so did not move from anywhere. It's also not a UK company. So long as that's clear what does your question mean? There are many companies of German origin outside of Germany. Many of these companies will be headquartered in Germany but owned elsewhere.

It is very difficult to close a company in Germany as the pension and redundancy rules are tough on the employer. As a result many companies (including German ones) will not set up there. The same to some extent applies also to France. This is one of the reasons the UK has traditionally done well for inward investment.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, pinfireman said:

Oowee cracks some of the best gags!  "Proper oversight"......Boy, that had some of the redundant workers here falling about! 

CORRECT!

Have you asked yourself why their accounts are not audited? Come on, oowee, tell us what no journalist, or politician has been unable to find out..........seeing as how you have an inside track to the  Commission?

British government grants and subsidies went to the North long before the EU did! I know, I live there, dealt with coalfield regeneration funds...

And so what? The government is still subsidising the north. 

n 2016 the EU spent €136 billion—or about £110 billion, at the average exchange rate for 2016. That's a few billion less than what the UK spent on the NHS. The Court said the EU’s accounts in 2016: “present, in all material respects, a true and fair view of the EU’s financial results for the year and its assets and liabilities at the end of the year.… We were therefore able to give a clean opinion on the reliability of (i.e. ‘sign off’) the accounts, as we have done every year since 2007.

But it did find that 3.1% of EU spending was subject to error. This is slightly lower than in previous years, but as long as the estimated error is above a threshold of 2%, it’s considered “material”.

However, the “entitlement payments” (rewards for meeting conditions, rather than payments for costs incurred) were found to have an error level below the 2% threshold.

This meant that, for the first time since 1994, the accounts were given a “qualified”, rather than “adverse”, opinion. The auditors found that: “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”.

Error is not always the same as fraud or waste

Just because some money is paid in error doesn’t mean people all the people involved have deliberately tried to defraud the EU. 

A small minority of the cases that the auditors look at each year involve suspected fraud. The UK’s Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded for years that the complexity of the EU’s spending programmes, which creates misunderstandings, contributes towards these errors.

It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules. One way to run afoul of the rules, for instance, is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. Even though the rules haven’t been followed, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.

[oowee]

24 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

There should only be two options left in this saga now, Mays deal minus the never ending back stop or, if the EU won't see sense with Mays deal, which is still a terrible deal for the UK and will see us pay them billions they have now right to and we have no legal need to pay, no deal which I think would be great, of course we'll see more back pedaling if it came to that

Let's hope she has not been stitched up and we just get this appalling outcome instead of falling into the abys of no deal.

Now we can spend the next two years begging to get half way back to where we were. Meanwhile we can try and work up an appetite for cheap chicken and gm cereals or maybe look forward to our new easy in visa system for the sub continent. Your right I overlooked the huge sales opportunity with our antipodean friends to sell them ................... i dont know you will have to help me out. 

🙂 That's just my Cynical view and of course I could be wrong.

[Gordon R]

oowee - you have turned "being wrong" into an art form, as you are rarely, if ever, right. I doff my cap to you in peddling rubbish, consistently. Your "facts" are comedy gold.

[ordnance]

Quote

The UK car industry collapsed in part because it was based and only based in the UK.

But mainly because most of the cars ( not all ) were ****, poorly designed and built. 

[Retsdon]

May might get a slight re-jigging of the accompanying 'Political Declaration', but the actual Withdrawal Agreement itself is not up for re-negotiation. The EU has pointed this out repeatedly, most recently in a rare speech by Sabine Weyand, Barnier's deputy negotiator. I have to say, I rather liked her wry observation that discussion about the withdrawal agreement in the UK was frequently 'uninhibited by any knowledge'. She's obviously been watching the live stream from Westminster!

With six weeks to go and the UK is in a Mexican standoff with itself from which there seems to be no way out. So it looks like No Deal Brexit is coming. Doubtless some people will cheer the prospect. I don't mind betting though, that when the actual reality bites,  these  people will be the only ones cheering in the end.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Retsdon

[oowee]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

oowee - you have turned "being wrong" into an art form, as you are rarely, if ever, right. I doff my cap to you in peddling rubbish, consistently. Your "facts" are comedy gold.

👍Good to see you following the contributions. Easy to be right Gordon when your only contribution is not to make one.

Here is the start of the trade deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119

Which way forward for UK farming? I reckon it's going to be good for deer stalking if we can do a trade deal. 

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, oowee said:

Let's hope she has not been stitched up and we just get this appalling outcome instead of falling into the abys of no deal.

Now we can spend the next two years begging to get half way back to where we were. Meanwhile we can try and work up an appetite for cheap chicken and gm cereals or maybe look forward to our new easy in visa system for the sub continent. Your right I overlooked the huge sales opportunity with our antipodean friends to sell them ................... i dont know you will have to help me out. 

🙂 That's just my Cynical view and of course I could be wrong.

I'll agree that I'll be glad to see a deal also, provided it actually means we leave, doesn't stop or interfere with us trading with other countries, stops automatic right for people to settle or work here and doesn't require us to pay money to them to trade, otherwise the referendum result hasn't been delivered and we should simply walk away. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Easy to be right Gordon when your only contribution is not to make one.

Far easier to be consistently wrong when you insist on posting such biased nonsense.

PS - I have made a number of contributions to this topic, which amply demonstrates that you seldom get it right.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'll agree that I'll be glad to see a deal also, provided it actually means we leave, doesn't stop or interfere with us trading with other countries, stops automatic right for people to settle or work here and doesn't require us to pay money to them to trade, otherwise the referendum result hasn't been delivered and we should simply walk away. 

I'll also settle for a deal if it means we definitely leave, and includes absolutely no interference from the EU in UK matters, nor costs us anything. I have no objection to trading with the EU at all. 

Can anyone ( I've actually lost count now of the times I've asked and been ignored ) enlighten me as to what this 'abyss' consists of ? 

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'll agree that I'll be glad to see a deal also, provided it actually means we leave, doesn't stop or interfere with us trading with other countries, stops automatic right for people to settle or work here and doesn't require us to pay money to them to trade, otherwise the referendum result hasn't been delivered and we should simply walk away.

Don't loose sight of the fact that the 'deal' at present being negotiated is simply a 'transition deal' or as they prefer it 'implementation period' of 21 months intended to take us up to Dec 2020 which is the final date.  It expires in Dec 2020 - and if there is no agreed trade deal in place by then - the dreaded 'backstop' kicks in. 

During the implementation period, we are 'out' but have certain arrangements in place to attempt to ensure a smooth transition to 'totally left' in Dec 2020.

What really matters is what is in place after December 2020 - and no one has yet even started negotiating future trade terms (the agreed trade deal) and conditions with the EU to be in place after that date - mainly because the EU has flatly refused to address the issue of future trade until the transition deal for the implementation period is agreed (i.e. they have palmed £40 billion of our money).  This is why the backstop is so essential - if we cannot get the agreed trade deal which the French have already said would need to give them access to our fishing waters - then the backstop kicks in - and we have to go on paying until they agree we can terminate the backstop.  That is why many believe the backstop must either go - or have a defined period after which it ends.

I would imagine that IF they fail to get their grubby mits on our £40 billion now - they will try to introduce tariffs (in the agreed trade deal) to recover it later - as it is a (large and essential) part of their overblown budget.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[old man]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

How? 

 

I take it from your comments that you would like to see the government remove it's support for the North of the UK? The rich help the poor that is what happens in a developed and civilised world. Sorry you do not like it.

Sadly I think your thought process flawed? All it leads to is the same as the supermarket push for total dominance to remove all competition. The end result, you get what your'e given with no choice of your own just theirs imposed?

Our own elected politicos have proved to be untrustworthy so the thought of giving the un elected variety total control fills me with apprehension. As to the true motives behind any of them, all about truth and trust which in my book has to be earned.

The EU is all about economic enslavement, good riddance in the name of democracy.

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Don't loose sight of the fact that the 'deal' at present being negotiated is simply a 'transition deal' or as they prefer it 'implementation period' of 21 months intended to take us up to Dec 2020 which is the final date.  It expires in Dec 2020 - and if there is no agreed trade deal in place by then - the dreaded 'backstop' kicks in. 

During the implementation period, we are 'out' but have certain arrangements in place to attempt to ensure a smooth transition to 'totally left' in Dec 2020.

What really matters is what is in place after December 2020 - and no one has yet even started negotiating future trade terms (the agreed trade deal) and conditions with the EU to be in place after that date - mainly because the EU has flatly refused to address the issue of future trade until the transition deal for the implementation period is agreed (i.e. they have palmed £40 billion of our money).  This is why the backstop is so essential - if we cannot get the agreed trade deal which the French have already said would need to give them access to our fishing waters - then the backstop kicks in - and we have to go on paying until they agree we can terminate the backstop.  That is why many believe the backstop must either go - or have a defined period after which it ends.

I would imagine that IF they fail to get their grubby mits on our £40 billion now - they will try to introduce tariffs (in the agreed trade deal) to recover it later - as it is a (large and essential) part of their overblown budget.

Absolutely spot on, thank you for explaining my post (I type on a smartphone so find long posts tricky). It's why I said it's still a bad deal for the UK and why I still don't believe we'll ever be aloud to truly leave, there's simply too many snouts in troughs from all sides of the house. 

[panoma1]

Where were/are the negotiations? The EU are (and have been consistently) saying this is what you are getting..."we both know it's a carp deal, but that's it! Take it or leave it!"......anyone with any sense would leave it and just walk away.

If the EU refuses to renegotiate the "deal", and parliament wont accept the "deal".........there is no deal.......so the UK can only walk away without a deal!

Unless of course the remainers can get Parliament to agree that there won't be a "no deal Brexit"......then the UK will be in a perpetual EU limbo.......until the remainers can get article 50 overturned....they get their undemocratic way, and the UK "remains" in the EU.

 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Sadly I think your thought process flawed? All it leads to is the same as the supermarket push for total dominance to remove all competition. The end result, you get what your'e given with no choice of your own just theirs imposed?

Our own elected politicos have proved to be untrustworthy so the thought of giving the un elected variety total control fills me with apprehension. As to the true motives behind any of them, all about truth and trust which in my book has to be earned.

The EU is all about economic enslavement, good riddance in the name of democracy.

Not sure I follow your argument? 

 

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Where were/are the negotiations? The EU are (and have been consistently) saying this is what you are getting..."we both know it's a carp deal, but that's it! Take it or leave it!"......anyone with any sense would leave it and just walk away.

If the EU refuses to renegotiate the "deal", and parliament wont accept the "deal".........there is no deal.......so the UK can only walk away without a deal!

Unless of course the remainers can get Parliament to agree that there won't be a "no deal Brexit"......then the UK will be in a perpetual EU limbo.......until the remainers can get article 50 overturned....they get their undemocratic way, and the UK "remains" in the EU.

 

Whilst not binding the Spelman amendment agreed last night rejects no deal.